Cain Is Not Able

by
Thomas A. Droleskey

The Circus of the Midget Naturalists presents Americans a quadrennial road show that features a variety of confused individuals, whether of the false opposites of the naturalist "right" or of the naturalist "left," who claim to have all kinds of "solutions" to problems that have their remote cause in Original Sin and and their proximate causes in the Actual Sins of men. None of the midget naturalists who claim to oppose the statism of the "left" understand that statism is the but the logical result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King as God has implanted into the very nature of man a desire to be subordinate to some authority no matter how perverted and unjust that authority may be. And the midget naturalists of the "left" oppose efforts to retard statism because they have arrogated unto themselves the authority of Holy Mother Church, considering themselves to be the true secular magisterium from which no one may dissent legitimately without incurring their wrath, usually expressed in bitter terms of denunciation.

This is all a a perverse game. Every single bit of it comes from the devil to provide the masses with bread and circuses in order to distract whoever might be inclined to pray more Rosaries and to study the authentic Social Teaching of the Catholic Church from doing so, designed also, of course, to make sure that those who have been miseducated in America's Concentration Camps continue to believe that electoral politics provides a way to "solve" a nation's problems.

Longtime readers of this site know that I have written on this endlessly. The first volume of the e-book that will be published within the next ten days or so provides a contrast between the Christendom of the Middle Ages with the events wrought by the Protestant Revolution's overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the the subsequent rise of the multifaceted, interrelated forces of naturalism that can be described by the phrase of Judeo-Masonry. There is little more original that can be written in this brief article, except to note that it matters little who is running in any given year. The naturalist rhetoric remains the same as American "exceptionalism" and the "founding fathers" and the constitution and "liberty" are used as slogans by one after another to appeal to the masses. Another given, noting very few exceptions (Patrick Joseph Buchanan, Ronald Ernest Paul), is reflexive support for the murderous policies of the State of Israel. That is an absolute given. Inevitably, however, those who lack the clarity of the true Faith--and thus lack the Sanctifying Grace that is necessary to enlighten their intellects and strengthen their wills--to speak intelligibly, logically and consistently on major issues.

The naturalist "flavor-of-the-week" recently has been Herman Cain, former chief executive officer of the Godfather Pizza chain and a former chief lobbyist for the National Restaurant Association. Mr. Cain is a glib speaker. That's all he is, however. He has quite a penchant for coming up with catchy phrases, although "9-9-9" does reflect poorly upon him as it is a certain number turned upside down. See how that looks in the photograph below:

The mindlessness of naturalism is such that people are attracted to slogans and catch-phrases that make it possible to return to other distractions, such as sports and television and video/computer games of one sort or another, as they are satisfied with sophistries that take the place of rational thought.

Flavors-of-the-week favor, however. United States Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota) has discovered this. So has Texas Governor James Richard Perry, although he might become a naturalist flavor-of-the-week at some point in the near future. Such is the fickleness of the masses, immersed from birth into the ways of naturalism that rot their minds and pollute their immortal souls with lies and illogic and just plain nonsense all day long, every day.

Those who are caught up in the trap of naturalism invariably wind up contracting themselves at some point or another, sometimes in the same sentence (see It's Still Absolute Insanity). Herman Cain, as likable a person as he may be, clearly has not thought too deeply about many issues, including the Fifth Commandment's simple prohibition against the direct, intentional taking of any innocent human life for any reason at any time. Although the questions asked by the Communist News Network's (CNN's) on "exceptions" to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment were argumentative and designed to test Cain's knowledge of the issue, Cain would have been able to respond intelligibly if he had any basic understanding beyond his stated "no exceptions" position:

MORGAN: Abortion. What's your view of abortion?

CAIN: I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances. And here's why --

MORGAN: No circumstances?

CAIN: No circumstances.

MORGAN: Because many of your fellow candidates -- some of them qualify that.

CAIN: They qualify but --

MORGAN: Rape and incest.

CAIN: Rape and incest.

MORGAN: Are you honestly saying -- again, it's a tricky question, I know.

CAIN: Ask the tricky question.

MORGAN:
But you've had children, grandchildren. If one of your female
children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring
up that baby as her own?

CAIN: You're mixing two things here, Piers?

MORGAN: Why?

CAIN: You're mixing --

MORGAN: That's what it comes down to.

CAIN:
No, it comes down to it's not the government's role or anybody else's
role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical
incidents, you're not talking about that big a number. So what I'm
saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that
mother has to make.

Not me as president, not some politician,
not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they
decide, they decide. I shouldn't have to tell them what decision to
make for such a sensitive issue.

MORGAN: By expressing the view
that you expressed, you are effectively -- you might be president. You
can't hide behind now the mask, if you don't mind me saying, of being
the pizza guy. You might be the president of United States of America.
So your views on these things become exponentially massively more
important. They become a directive to the nation.

CAIN: No
they don't. I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a
directive on the nation. The government shouldn't be trying to tell
people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions
that they need to make.

Cain has also said that he would not ask Congress to approve a constitutional amendment to affirm the inviolability of all innocent human life, but that he would "sign" such an amendment, indicating that he has unfamiliar with the Fifth Amendment's provisions concerning a Congressional approval (by a two-thirds majority vote) of an amendment, which must be then be sent to state legislatures or specially convened state ratifying conventions, whichever Congress shall specify. Presidents do not sign nor do they have the power to veto constitutional amendments. They can lobby Congress in support of or in opposition to a particular amendment. They have no role in the amending process after a particular amendment has received approval by a two-thirds majority vote in both Houses of Congress.

A minor matter. No, not if one is running for the presidency. One must know the constitutional precepts that govern each of the three branches of government in this country.

Much more to the point, however, one who says he is completely "pro-life" without any "exceptions" whatsoever must be able to answer basic questions without making it appear as though some kind of "decision" has to be made when a woman is carrying a child after having been forcibly assaulted. One must accept everything that occurs to him as within the Providence of God, recognizing that the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, are sufficient for us to carry whatever crosses we are asked to bear. No one steeped in the lies of Protestantism and thus of the lies of naturalism even thinks about answering in such a way.

Indeed, even former United States Senator Richard John Santorum (R-Pennsylvania), a Catholic who opposes all abortions and who has criticized Cain for the answers that he gave to Piers Morgan, refuses to speak in such a way, and he is not going to be the 2012 Republican presidential nominees. What's the point of a Catholic running a campaign that one must admit has little chance of succeeding if one is unwilling to challenge people with truths that they not otherwise ever hear at any point in the lives? Alas, such an approach is anathema for those attached to the counterfeit church of conciliarism and its world view that was shaped in large measure by the heres of Americanism.

Although questions about the particular "hard cases" raised by Piers Morgan do indeed seek to incite viewers to respond viscerally and emotionally to a "hard line" answer, one who is running for president after having take such a "hard line" should expect to be questioned about his position, and while Mr. Cain did point out that the numbers of such cases is indeed quite small, any attempt to take refuge in the "personal decision" or "personal choice" answer demonstrates that one is unable to articulate basic principles clearly because he does understand them very deeply.

Cain has compounded this matter further by limiting his remarks on abortion from now on to a written statement that has been prepared for him by damage-control central in his understaffed campaign:

Less understandable was his statement to CNN’s Piers Morgan on Wednesday
that abortion “ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or
that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician, not a
bureaucrat. It gets down to that family, and whatever they decide, they
decide. I shouldn’t have to tell them what decision to make for such a
sensitive issue.”

Cain’s campaign the next day issued a press release titled “I am 100%
pro-life” before telling Fox News: “Abortion should not be legal, that
is clear. But if that family made a decision to break the law, that’s
that family’s decision, that’s all I’m trying to say.”

Cain tightened his message on abortion in a brief interview Saturday at the football stadium.

“Read the press release, that’s all I’m going to say,” he told POLITICO.
“It’s got all of the information in there. That’s one of those issues
that if you don’t say exactly the right word, exactly the way somebody
expects it, you step on a landmine. That’s why we wrote it down. So we
could be real clear.” (Iowa challenges confront.)

Cain is not able. Neither is any other naturalist, of course, including the highly scripted, robotic, calculating Willard Mitt Romney, who is on track to be this election cycle's Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or John Sidney McCain III, the man whose "turn" it is to be the "establishment's" standard-bearer in the climax of the quadrennial Circus of Midget Naturalists that is a presidential election in the United States of America. Cain, however, says that he is completely "pro-life" without being to answer a fair, although designed to be provocative, question about what that means.

This might mean something to a few of those who vote in Republican caucuses and primaries starting on January 3, 2012, with the Iowa Caucuses and then with the first primary in the State of New Hampshire on January 10, 2012. Cain's lack of clarity on the issue of baby-killing and his lack of comprehension about what it signifies about him won't matter to most caucus and primary voters, however, as they are fixated on the money, the money, the money, the money, and the money. Cain only had one line about abortion in his speech in Des Moines, Iowa, on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at a so-called "faith and freedom" forum in a city that becomes a magnet for presidential candidates every four years, although some naturalists campaign there immediately after the close of one election cycle so as to establish a structure for the round of naturalist madness.

Unfortunately for the midget naturalists, however, there's not going to be any money, money, money for the "people" even for some of their basic necessities, no less for luxuries and adult toys, as long as men defy the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law with wanton abandon and as the civil law enshrines such wanton conduct as within the its bounds. No one pays any attention to this plain words of Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, who lived the end of the Sixteenth Century into the early part of the Seventeenth century, as they were quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the
spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much
the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it
is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual
means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end
and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good
citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a
civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the
Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are
absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of
those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can
produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make
for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence
say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce
true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to
the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

But as the present order of things is temporary and
subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it
follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way
of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

Catholics in the United States of America have been under the operation of a plethora of Protestant and Judeo-Masonic naturalist errors from the very beginning. They have been enabled by generation after generation of Americanist bishops, thus paving the way for conciliarism's rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King and its embrace of the heresy of "religious liberty" that is enshrined in and flows from the falsehoods contained in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

In a nation that was informed by the Catholic Faith and whose civil leaders sought to please Christ the King as they honored Mary our Immaculate Queen, you see, there would be no debates about the chemical or surgical assassination of children or about "rights" for those engaged in perverse against nature. While men will always sin, a nation informed by the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our Lord has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication would be one in which it would be inconceivable that large numbers of people would seek to enshrine sinful behavior as consonant with the common temporal good. Men would not be divided over matters of Faith and Morals. Remember, Error Divides, Catholicism Unites.

The way out of this mess is not at the ballot box. The way of this mess is through our faithful adherence to Our Lady's Fatima Message, especially as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, as we seek to make reparation for our own sins and those of the world world as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. And may Saint Raphael the Archangel help us to find the right path to Heaven by refusing to take the smooth and wide roads of Modernity and Modernism.